Christidou v Chris - [2012] VSC 626

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 10855 of 2009

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO PART IV OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND PROBATE ACT 1958

and

IN THE MATTER OF THE WILL AND ESTATE OF RUBY RABY CHRIS, DECEASED

NATASA CHRISTIDOU	Plaintiff
v
MARY CHRIS (who is sued as the executor of the will and estate of RUBY RABY CHRIS, deceased)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	McMillan J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20, 21 and 22 June 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 December 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Christidou v Chris
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 626

---

TESTATOR’S FAMILY MAINTENANCE – Claim by adult daughter of the deceased – Deceased survived by three adult children – Small estate – Legacies to the plaintiffs and the other two adult children of the deceased – Principal asset of the estate left to the grandson of the deceased – Application under Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 s 91.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	C Sparke	Slater and Gordon
For the Defendant	L Spaulding (solicitor)	Brighton Legal P/L

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

In this proceeding, Natasa Christidou (‘Natasa’) seeks further provision for her maintenance and support from the estate of her late mother, Ruby Raby Chris (‘the deceased’), pursuant to s 91 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (‘the Act’).

Background

The deceased died on 23 October 2007 leaving a will dated 5 July 2007 (‘the will’). Probate of the will was granted to the defendant, Fotini Maria Christidis (‘Mary’) on 24 December 2007.

The deceased was survived by her three adult daughters, Natasa, born 9 January 1969, Evangelia Chris, now known as Lisa Mirigliani (‘Lisa’), born 11 November 1970 and Mary, born 6 December 1971.

Mary has one child, Noah Konstantinos (‘Noah’), now aged twelve years. Lisa has four children, now aged eleven, seven, four and three years.

By her will, the deceased gave the following:

(a) a legacy of $20 000 to Mary;

(b) a legacy of $40 000 to Natasa;

(c) a legacy of $5000 to Lisa;

(d) a legacy of $10 000 to be divided amongst the deceased’s five grandchildren upon their attaining the age of 21;

(e) a specific devise of Unit 6, 38–40 Broadway, Bonbeach (‘the unit’) to her grandson, Noah, on terms that it not be sold and that he be permitted to live in it until he attain the age of 35 years; and

(f) the residue of the estate to Noah.

The inventory of assets and liabilities dated 17 December 2007 shows that the estate of the deceased was, at that time, valued at $362 656.24, comprising:

(a) the unit valued at $220 000;

(b) bank accounts totalling approximately $141 049.86;

(c) a motor vehicle valued at $3100; and

(d) liabilities of $1493.62.

None of the legatees under the will has received any amounts due to them apart from Natasa, who received the sum of $20 000…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Christidou v Chris

Details

AGLC: Christidou v Chris [2012] VSC 626
Case: [2012] VSC 626
Decision Date: 18 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Christidou v Chris, the deceased left a modest estate to be divided among their three adult children and their grandson. The plaintiff, an adult daughter of the deceased, applied for maintenance under Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 s 91. The legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance from the estate given the limited financial resources available and the legacies bequeathed to her and her siblings. The court was required to balance the statutory provisions for family maintenance against the specific wishes of the deceased as expressed in their will.

The court considered the statutory provisions for family maintenance and the specific circumstances of the estate. It examined the deceased’s bequests to the plaintiff and her siblings and assessed the financial needs of the plaintiff in light of the modest estate. The court also took into account the statutory obligation to provide for the maintenance of the deceased’s family where necessary and the discretionary power to make orders for maintenance. Ultimately, the court found that while the deceased had provided legacies to the plaintiff, the limited financial resources of the estate meant that the plaintiff’s needs could not be fully met through the bequests alone. Consequently, the court ordered that the plaintiff receive a reasonable maintenance payment from the estate.

The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to a maintenance payment from the estate. It directed that the payment be made from the estate’s assets, considering the legacies already received by the plaintiff and her siblings. The court’s decision was based on the need to provide for the plaintiff’s reasonable maintenance needs while respecting the deceased’s wishes as expressed in the will. The court’s order provided the plaintiff with the necessary financial support to meet her needs, albeit from the limited resources of the estate.

Orders